Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 30, 2010 6:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Had missed you and Johnny going back and forth over this...I tend to agree with you, Ring-le-O, in the sense that having created a fictional character, why care about what someone else does with it? In fact, as cliche as it is, it IS the sincerest form of flattery.

And in fact, Johnny, your point (to me) makes this clear: given the other individual (copier) will be lesser (I agree with your premise--less creative) the work by defn will be inferior, so why would JDS be "worried" except in an entirely egotistical, spiteful fashion?

Thus, I do see it as a real sign of JDS's fundamental character flaws, etc., that Ring was getting at above.

As for MS's points that the fundamental nature of the artist need not be the focus of such critique, I understand that, but of course, after a fashion, that's what we here are doing all the time...we want to know what drives the artists we love, blah, blah, blah...so I think it only natural to pick it apart in great detail, and then make value judgments accordingly. The art is, at some level, an extension of the artist, and we would probably agree they cannot be separated entirely (Hitler's art cannot be viewed entirely objectively [completely devoid of the source), I would think...).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 30, 2010 6:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I think the issue is freedom of speech and encouraging creativity rather than stifling it. Would a sequel to Catcher in the Rye, written by some poor slob, be a great book? probably not. Should it actually be *stopped* just because the author of Catcher is offended by it? probably not. Most of what gets published is dreck, but we don't pass laws to stop it because admist the dreck are occasional works of greatness! and some people like dreck :)

A character is like an idea - once it's out there, no one owns it. Salinger (or now his estate) owns the actual work "Catcher in the Rye" but doesn't own Holden Caulfield. That's my opinion anyway - the judge in the case disagreed with me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 30, 2010 1:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

i think it might have gone beyond just referring to the character in name...and we don't know Salinger's motivation, an artist taking action to preserve the integrity of their work can still be a selfless endeavor...really now, if he was such an egotist then why didn't he milk the media for everything he could? i guess one could argue that lack of artist statement can be stronger than statement in the sense that the viewer's imagination is the only limit...i see Salinger and GD in a similar light as they both refused to buy into industry standards, which only tend to serve the selfish interests of publishers and record companies at the expense of the artistic integrity

one of the rules of copyright is frequency, my limited understanding is one is only allowed to rip so many bars of music before the hammer comes down...and exactly where is the line to be drawn? the Stagger Lee character is a good example of an actual historical event spun in many directions by many singers (re - Dodd's Annotated GD Lyrics)

i knew a folk singer who composed his lyrics by ripping each individual lyric from a different song, one line from Led Zep, next from Dylan, another from Jethro Tull and so on...somehow i can't imagine this to be even legal, but i guess you're right, schlock is schlock and people are going to notice it for what it is anyways...still good to see some of these scoundrels get their little pee-pee's slapped though

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 31, 2010 3:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Well, see, it depends on what you think creativity is. I think taking a line from various songs and trying to compose a new one *is* creativity. Wish I'd thought of it :)

There are few original geniuses among us and almost all creative work builds on works from the past. Also, you (and some others in the discussion) I think assume that the original artist should and will feel insulted, ripped off, etc. He/she could just as well feel flattered and pleased. Why should an idea or a character stay stuck in time forever - isn't the idea for it to live on? Well, some people who read it will have other thoughts or ideas or inspirations about it, nothing wrong with that.

In folk music in particular, this is really true. Think how many adaptations and versions there are of most folk tunes; a good chunk of the Dead repertoire was folk tunes they didn't write, yet put their own spin on, no? If someone had screamed "copyright" over, say, Iko Iko, we wouldn't have a lot of Dead songs.

Obviously, Salinger didn't feel this way, but it is just as valid a response, IMO. It's an interesting point about the comparison between the Dead and Salinger re: bucking industry standards.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Jan 31, 2010 6:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

creative works don't get stuck in time forever, i believe works become public domain 50 years after the artist's death...Iko Iko and a lot of the Dead's traditional material was no longer protected, if it ever was...the composers of anything still protected would be entitled to compensation, seems the rules for music are different, as far as i know permission isn't needed to cover a song (there might be some restrictions of use - tv commercials?)

if some artists feel flattered that others want to copy their work then they can give their permission and sign away their rights w/o even requiring compensation if they so choose

i will agree on the inspiration part, but that's where i
would draw a safe line, after that things get blurred


as per William's comments; re - "we want to know what drives the artists..."
i don't feel an artists personal life is our business beyond what they want to reveal to us themselves...much of what is published is nothing more than gossip (although i don't mind reading what a founding band member has to say, isn't Bob writing something?) all the other second hand info does little to help us understand what the real creative process may have been, the real goodies are in the work itself

"And here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul..."
:)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 31, 2010 6:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

>creative works don't get stuck in time forever, i believe works become public domain 50 years after the artist's death...

True. I guess I'm just on the side of earlier rather than later.

>Iko Iko and a lot of the Dead's traditional material was no longer protected, if it ever was...

The "if it ever was" is key - such material wasn't protected because of the *absence* of the aggressive lawyering available to someone like Salinger, the original authors of folk tunes usually being dirt poor and unknown. To the great benefit of all of us!

>the composers of anything still protected would be entitled to compensation,

Isn't that the argument Weir et al. gave re: limiting the downloads? There are a lot of people's rights involved, not just our beloved boys.

>seems the rules for music are different, as far as i know permission isn't needed to cover a song (there might be some restrictions of use - tv commercials?)

I always get a little mixed up as to the differences between performance and other types of art wrt copyright. It's a vast tangled area in the law.

>if some artists feel flattered that others want to copy their work then they can give their permission and sign away their rights w/o even requiring compensation if they so choose

and some do, that's the creative commons. Isn't John Barlow involved in this big time?

>i will agree on the inspiration part, but that's where i
would draw a safe line, after that things get blurred

For sure.

>isn't Bob writing something?)

Oh, I hope so!!

>real goodies are in the work itself

Can't dispute you there.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 30, 2010 12:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" why would JDS be "worried" except in an entirely egotistical, spiteful fashion?"

I dont know what the guys motivation was. All I'm saying is that if someone created something I could see why they might have a personal attachment to it. You're telling me that if you actually created something you were proud of and someone came along and decided to expand on it you wouldn't care? How about if someone painted a picture and someone took a print of that picture and added to it AFTER the artist asked them not to? We can all get caught up in what's legal and what's not blah blah blah ut if nothing else it shows a lack of class and an ego trip on the part of the person who would go ahead and do it anyway.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 31, 2010 6:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

But why be so insulted? If you created something that someone else thought was so good they wanted to play with it too, isn't that a compliment? Certainly better than having your work ignored.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 31, 2010 12:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

well as someone who used to draw I can tell you - art is an extension of ones self> If I made a drawing that was actually good or I thought it was good and someone took a copy of that drawing and expanded on it I wouldn't like it. Now I think a lot of musicians are flattered by it and don't mind but to each their own right? I don't know this guys motivation all I'm saying is if I wanted to do something with someones idea and they said they didnt want me to I wouldn't do it just because i legally could get away with it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 10:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I have to say, the only way it would bother me is if it were the case they were hiding it was "mine" and making money off it as a result...otherwise, I can tell you, it has happened to me with photos and manuscripts, and I always take it as a great compliment...Not that any of "us" are making any "real" $$ out of it, but I really do believe the more PR the better!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 12:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

a photo - sure it takes skill etc to be a great photographer but the rest of it is just luck. Surely it's not the same as a painting or drawing is it?

so you're telling me that if you created something by hand all original to you and someone took that and did things to it you wouldn't care? well to each their own. all i was saying is i could see why someone would care. as for your manuscript, what was it for? did you hand something in and someone changed it without your input and you didnt care?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Whoa!? I assume you are caught up in proving me "wrong", but I will give you a chance to reconsider this: you really think photography is inferior to other forms of artistic impression because you don't use your "hands"?

I know that sounds bad, J, but seriously, re-read that post--I don't think I could even respond I am so worked up right now imagining you mean this...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

You're the one arguing with me, so who's trying to prove who wrong here Tell? I just said what my opinion was same as you. I didn't say you were wrong or that i was advocating some legal action etc. I'm just trying to see if you really wouldn't care about someone altering your art.

It depends what kind of photography we're talking about and how much manipulation thereof for me to answer if it's the same or not. Taking a picture of a beautiful sunset doesn't make the photgrapher the creator of the sunset now does it? either they're skilled enought to know how to oeprate the camera and lighting or lucky enough to be in the right spot imo.

so ok, shoot me off a picture your proud of taking and then tell me it's ok for me to f it up beyond recognition and publish it as long as i dont make any money off it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Hey J--I've long since moved past the original point we were "debating" as I think you are right--we can view it differently. The stuff of mine that was modified was not the issue--do you think that because it might not be significant, that's why I don't have a leg to stand on? Do you really mean to say that?

I am now ONLY responding to what you have now made clear: photography is NOT as creative as drawing in and of itself.

BULLSHIT.

Really.

Ask Ansel Adams or any of the greats.

I think that they are ENTIRELY equivalent in terms of the effor req'd...you can say "hey, this person with fine motor skills is as much of a cheat as a photographer" if you take the stance you have...why is "doing that with your hands" any more creative?

I really don't think there is a difference, which unless I am reading you wrong, you are implying photographers are "lesser" than those that draw or paint.

I say again, BULLSHIT.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" I really don't think there is a difference, which unless I am reading you wrong, you are implying photographers are "lesser" than those that draw or paint."

I do. put it this way - I think a truly great painter is more talented than a truly great photgrapher but a truly great photgrapher can be more than a soso painter.

sorry man, yeah I see photgraphy as art but Ansel Adams aint no michelangelo or da Vinci.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 1, 2010 7:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"I think a truly great painter is more talented than a truly great photgrapher "

no offense, but you quite obviously dont know much about photography. again, no offense - i will grant you they are two different mediums - but both require a similar understanding of light, color, and depth. however, since it is truly subjective, you are entitled to your opinion.

This post was modified by direwolf0701 on 2010-02-02 03:18:15

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 7:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" no offense, but you quite obviously dont know much about photography. again, no offense "

you're right Dire, I don't know much about photography. No offense taken. My opinion remains that I am more impressed of the talent of painters, drawers, sculpters than I am photographers. NEVER said photography isn't art, I just don't put it in the same scale sorry.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 1, 2010 8:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

good - i am glad that did not come across wrong.

when you say you are impressed with the talents of painters, what do you make of the half-dozen or so 6-12 year olds who have fooled the "experts" into thinking that their own works are "works of art?" I am only asking this because you seemed to imply that some photographs considered good are just "lucky" - being in the right place at the right time. i will certainly grant you that some great shots are luck, and oftentimes you need to return to the same location numerous times to get the "perfect" light, but one still needs tremendous compositional skills (never mind a very in depth knowledge of the attributes of light) to effectively produce a "great" photo. to me, this is extremely creative - just as much so a throwing some paint on a canvas and calling it "impressionist."


(not being argumentative, just curious. i personally like both photography and painting/drawing - i realize you simply said you are more "impressed" with the talents of painters, so my curiousity is piqued)

This post was modified by direwolf0701 on 2010-02-02 04:37:13

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Feb 2, 2010 1:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

after reading this thread i "interviewed" my wife over dinner tonight, she's a formally trained fine artist who also photographs subjects which she sometimes refers to when painting, although her work is not altogether representational of the photos

she claims drawing is only a prerequisite, the same as learning to operate a camera or stringing together grammatically correct sentences or fluently executing scales and exercises on a musical instrument

sense of design and composition are the same for all of these disciplines, the only thing that changes from one to the next are the tools

interesting that you mention children, who are known to possess a natural sense of compositional balance

the use of filters, shutter/aperture settings, film types as well as processing techniques (incl computers) allow photographers a wide range of creative possibilities beyond purely representational...and even though she has no interest in formal training, my wife has found the photographic experience has greatly increased her overall awareness of composition and development of "eye"

sometimes an old cliche says it best, "A picture is worth..."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 8:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"sense of design and composition are the same for all of these disciplines, the only thing that changes from one to the next are the tools"

excellent post which i agree with wholeheartedly. glad to see you said it somewhat more clearly than I. having been very into photography for the past few years, i can assure everyone that there is a VERY large creative element that goes into a "good" photo. i am very much still learning the "art." (but having a freakin blast in the process)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: Feb 2, 2010 1:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

good to see you getting into it dire! the process alone is invaluable...

all the credit is due to my better half, i could sense there was something askew about the idea of a "hierarchy of artistic media", it just happened that she does both and photos are only used as a stepping stone for her, so i believe her when she says she would never think for an instance that what she does is somehow superior to the work of the photographers she both admires and learns from

having said that, both of us tend to steer clear of installation art and techno-pop music, one of the problems is anyone can and will endeavor (no shortage of audacity) but it's like anything else, there are only so many people who have an "eye" or an "ear" to pull it off and if anything these medias are a lot more difficult to work in and still have something worthwhile to say

for me, i would rather get lost in a set of complex jazz changes that speak to me rather than struggle with finding something new to say with C and G...and to be honest, admitting that is nothing more than an indication of my own limitations :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 6:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

and it sure is one heck of a process :) and a pricey one to boot. i truly enjoy the learning curve, the studying to understand, and the practice, practice, practice. it sure can be humbling at times when the results fall far short of the mark, but that only pushes further.

your wife sounds like a very artistic soul and one, undoubtedly, with great talent. i am still but a neophyte who looks forward to a never ending process of learning, discovery, and, quite simply, a true enjoyment of the arts.

i am actually in the process of putting a rather simple website together for some of my photos. i'll have to link it when i am "done" so that i can receive much abuse and nasty criticism from the mob of miscreants which frequent this place ;)

peace man :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 2, 2010 7:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

To think, the geeky, skirt chasing PM actually stood up for "art"...perhaps it's because the word is so much like one of my other favorite words. You know, making good use of an "f" and "BAM!", perfect for the juvenile humor around here.

And you thought I was only good for PR during wartime...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 8:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

i would expect no less of you than to stand up for your concept(s) of artistic principles. (irregardless of your penchant for rectal gusts)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 2, 2010 4:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Thanks, MS; and you too, Dire...these comments affirm my take on these matters, and it's much appreciated.

I don't mean to be piling on J, and I know all you well enough to know no one is doing that sort of thing...besides, J, Dire still likes the PATS so what could he possibly know? I was kinda thinking Ian would show up here--I'd love to get his take on it, and not just cause he's a good photographer...he's not one to fly off the handle like me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 8:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

i didnt intend to pile on Jots either, although i took a bit of exception to the inference that photography is somewhat "less" of an art, or that it requires less talent. imho - that line of thinking is just dead wrong. However, if one simply "prefers" one medium over another, that is more than understandable.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Feb 2, 2010 11:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

http://stevelanderos.com/gallery.html

This site belongs to my bro-in-law. He's got some talent.

It takes a creative eye, but also you must be motivated to find new perspective on everyday sights. His drive to find a "new" shot and his willingness to hike, climb, trespass or just sit and wait for hours is a big part of the process. After all that, he still must operate the equipment in a masterful way.

I'm piling-on JOTS, but at least offering some pictures of his forgotten home in return.

This post was modified by high flow on 2010-02-02 19:43:23

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

those are indeed some very nice photos

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

he does have some talent. he is pretty good at post-processing and seems to heavily rely on HDR (which can be seen as both good and bad, but does produce stunningly colored images. it is the "in thing" right now - and camera makers are even coming out with models that produce HDR within their own processors - pretty neat idea). a little heavy on the post processing for my personal taste, but i DO like his work.

thank you for sharing that HF - appreciated. he has a good eye for angle of light and seems to stick close with the rule of thirds. hopefully he is making a buck or two in the tough world of photography!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mono55 Date: May 6, 2010 6:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

It is my understanding that each of this guys pictures are single layer, and processed "by hand". Seeing as how they are single layer, they can not be HDR. I met this photographer in person late last year, and again just last week. He was assisting in a photo workshop, where he covered the topic of "in camera".... Getting a well balanced image, with little post processing. At first, I thought he used HDR, but quickly learned that this "in camera" picture was do able by the use of ND filters to balance the image. Yes, he does use a $5000 camera setup, but he did show us that the same results could be achieved in any camera that would allow for the use of the ND filters. I have read many opinions about the use of these ND filters. Some saying that they are not much different than HDR, and some saying its the best way to get a balanced image. The use of these filters was made popular by the late Galen Rowell back in the 1970s, and 80s, when there was no such thing as Photoshop, or HDR. If you truly look at the images on this site, you will see that yes, some look "unreal" but thats because of the "balance" that one can not achieve without the filters... Just as Ansel could not achieve the balance of his images without his "zone system" and the use of "dodging & burning" in the dark room.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mono55 Date: May 6, 2010 7:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

It is my understanding that each of this guys pictures are single layer, and processed "by hand". Seeing as how they are single layer, they can not be HDR. I met this photographer in person late last year, and again just last week. He was assisting in a photo workshop, where he covered the topic of "in camera".... Getting a well balanced image, with little post processing. At first, I thought he used HDR, but quickly learned that this "in camera" picture was do able by the use of ND filters to balance the image. Yes, he does use a $5000 camera setup, but he did show us that the same results could be achieved in any camera that would allow for the use of the ND filters. I have read many opinions about the use of these ND filters. Some saying that they are not much different than HDR, and some saying its the best way to get a balanced image. The use of these filters was made popular by the late Galen Rowell back in the 1970s, and 80s, when there was no such thing as Photoshop, or HDR. If you truly look at the images on this site, you will see that yes, some look "unreal" but thats because of the "balance" that one can not achieve without the filters... Just as Ansel could not achieve the balance of his images without his "zone system" and the use of "dodging & burning" in the dark room.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 6, 2010 8:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

ok - i stand corrected on the HDR - as you noted, easy to see why they appear to be HDR.

I am curious as to his definition of "little post processing" though (nothing wrong with post processing, i am not being a smart ass by any stretch.) An ND filter just does not "do that" alone. In any event, they are stunning photos.

Thank you for the clarification - it is appreciated.

This post was modified by direwolf0701 on 2010-05-06 15:07:33

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

what do I think? I think there's a lot of pretentious art snobs and abstract art can easily be interpreted a million ways. What do YOU think about the fact that if I had a high end camera and took 100 pictures in sucession for everything i photographed that I bet money I'd come up with something worthy to publish?

You all can pile on me all you want i dont care. I NEVER said photgraphy isnt an art i just happen to think that you can learn to be a good photgrapher but other forms of art take inate talent that can not be taught.

ever see that Hendrix movive that starts off with the guy that throws paint on the canvass then lo and behold it eventually looks like a portrait? you can not teach that imo. either you are born with that or not

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"What do YOU think about the fact that if I had a high end camera and took 100 pictures in sucession for everything i photographed that I bet money I'd come up with something worthy to publish?"

considering that i know the photography market, i would say that statement is delusional unless you have some talent and a good eye. a high end camera really doesnt matter. i have seen pros use a $120 canon powershot and create phenomenal photos. saying a high end camera makes THE difference may be likened to me saying I could use Phil Mickelson's golf clubs and go out and shoot a 68.

think through what you say. (like I always do - lol)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" think through what you say."

why because you disagree with me? look, if so many people here have a hard on for photography then more power to them. I can appreciate a good picture, i definately was impressed with High Flows brother in laws pictures but i highly doubt i'd pay hundreds of dollars for anybodys reprint of a photograph. But I'd pay that much for a painting if i had it.

my point that you chose to gloss over is not that it doesn't take any skill to be a photgrapher what i'm saying is if i had a good enough camera ( as in speed resolution etc )and took an s-load of pictures I'd bet i'd come up with some pretty damn good ones. If I went out and bought a bunch of paint no matter how many classes i took i would never be that great of a painter.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"what i'm saying is if i had a good enough camera ( as in speed resolution etc )and took an s-load of pictures I'd bet i'd come up with some pretty damn good ones. If I went out and bought a bunch of paint no matter how many classes i took i would never be that great of a painter."

and that is where i disagree with you completely. but let us just agree to disagree on this.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

fine by me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" i would say that statement is delusional unless you have some talent and a good eye"

really? you dont think subject plays a part at all? whether it be natural beauty or a place with intense happenings like NY or SF? You really dont think if you plopped yourself down all day you'd come up with some good pictures?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

subject is less important than you think. it is what the artist DOES with the subject that makes the image meaningful, interesting, etc. i have seen some jawdropping photos of a simple rusting old water pail (along with some so-so ones with an amazing subject such as the Grand Tetons, Victoria Falls, etc). it is how the artist uses light angles, refraction, aperture/DOF, etc. same with painting if you ask me.

similarly, in literature/poetry - an interesting subject is "almost" irrelevant. one of the most famous poems in the english language runs about 8 lines and its subject is a red wheelbarrow.

just sayin'

:)

This post was modified by direwolf0701 on 2010-02-02 20:53:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Feb 2, 2010 12:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

"You really dont think if you plopped yourself down all day you'd come up with some good pictures?"

big difference between "good pictures" and art. i can take some DAMN good pictures, but I more than hesitate to call them art.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

OK, how can you defend that? What is the basis for it other than some, IMHO, indefensible notion that it "seems easier to me"?

If you have worked hard at both, I think you'd appreciate the similarities...and, are you sure those two fellows are your best choices?

Why isn't the "rock" they sculpted as much a part of it as the sunset that was captured? And what if they painted a sunset from their view?

I really don't get that these are that much different, if you are talking about the "greats"...

But, cool--we are clear now!

At least we both know that the PATS suck.

And one final thing, if you really believe you can make these distinctions, then how on earth would you not view "writers" as by far the "least" accomplished of the artists?

Because JDS just wrote about his "own" experiences, why isn't this like capturing a sunset on film?

Whoops--forgot; maybe you thought he sucked, and I agreed with you, but you could use my point for any writer...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 3:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

I definitely wouldn't put writers at the bottom - great literature has inspired many throughout all of mankinds historyand is one of the highest forms of art imo. which i guess goes to prove that art is ultimately all subjective opinion and in my opinion I don't put photography as high on the artistic scale as i do other forms of art. so THERE : )

ok using your argument are dj's that sample real musicians music on the same level as the original musicians they're sampling? Many people say yes but in my opinion i say no

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 6:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Actually, I guess by that last example, it (for me) confirms my point...if it is creative for music sorts to put notes together in particular ways, even if none are "new" (like Jimi H doing Watchtower) is it of any less "value" than Bob D's original? I would say most think Jimi's is "more valuable" (as you say, we can debate that all night)...this even touches on what started us going at it too I suppose!

So, I see the photo types as doing the same thing with interpretation, etc., as musicians, but in the end, I grant that one could say "I like painting better than drawing better than illustration and last, photography", and yep--we both can accept you and I have diff scales of those artistic endeavors...that would be cool by me, so in the end, since I think (?) at some point you said you did agree that if the photographer OR the painter OR the writer felt the person shouldn't copy their work, they all should be allowed to, we don't have an issue any more...

I do disagree that it "should" be a problem for ANY of them (ie, JDS "shouldn't" have cared), but as long as from your position you say a photographer would have an equal right to complain, then I wouldn't have ever said anything...

It was only that comment about "well, if it's JUST a photo...I can see that..." or whatever that got me going...

Stay well, J!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 7:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" It was only that comment about "well, if it's JUST a photo...I can see that..." or whatever that got me going..."

That's not what I said but if the gist is that I put photography lower as an art than a painter,writer, or musician then yes that is my opinion.

As for All Along the Watchtower - the Hendrix version is one of the ONLY reworks of a Dylan song that I think is worthy of the original. He added something and fleshed it out. But that wasn't the point of my example. Put it this way - if some dance DJ decided to do a sample remix of the Dead doing the ELEVEN would you think it was as creatively valid as the original? Music i think is one art form where it is socially acceptable for people to rework and redo ( because music started in the folk and tribal oral traditions )- certainly cool in the lIVE atmosphere but where i sometimes draw the line imo is why the need to put it on an album in a comercial setting? Dead not withstanding. Good Lovin? Cool tune ( or could be just an example ) live, but for them to put it on an album - lame imo. Now someone could cover the Dead (and i wish they would ) all day long but it'd be lame to my ears to put it on an album unless they had something to say with it ala the Ripple that Janes did ( which was a tribute album so that doesnt count obviously ). either way back to the orignal point is if the person who created it doesnt want you to do it then it's rude to do it anyway. That's my opinion.

Like ALI G said - RESPECK! Look it up in the dictionary it aint there anymore they took it out ( sorry love that line )

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

" The stuff of mine that was modified was not the issue--do you think that because it might not be significant, that's why I don't have a leg to stand on? Do you really mean to say that?"

what do you mean leg to stand on? whatever you create is yours to do with as you please. I think that if your photography isn't your life to the point where it consumes all your passion then you proabably don't have the same attachement to it as someone who does look at it this way. I see truly great artists as people who create because they have no choice not just because they like to. I don't know which category you're in and it doesn't matter anyway. Just my opinion. The bottom line is I think that if someone wants to borrow someones creation or use it they should get permission and as for photography - why is it such an insult that I don't view it as highly as other forms of art?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 1, 2010 2:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Caught by the reaper in the rye

Sorry--you took that the wrong way; I meant that because you implied mine was "something I was so proud of...show it to me!" that you were (clearly?) suggesting that if it wasn't great, it wouldn't count...and art is art, as you say, regardless of the motivation as to how important it was to the creator, right? Many do it as a hobby, some make a living, but none of that really matters, does it?